Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-11-28
THE OIL TRUST.
ROCKEFELLER Oh WITNESS STAND.
Lively Contests Between Attorneys Before the
Commission.


Oil Trust, was sworn and examined be-
fore the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion, this morning, in connection with the
Standard Oil. cases. Counsel for complain
ants asked the witness to produce paper.
that he had in hand, giving list ofstocks
of the various companies, held in. trust.
Immediately the counsel for the Standard
Oil Trust and for several of the defendant
railroads, interposed objections. The
former on the ground that the Standard
Oil Trust was not party to this case, and
that the production of the paper would be
an unnecessary and irrelevant disclosureo of
the witness private affairs.
The commission ruled that the persons
who appear in the case either as shippers
or as consigners are in any way connected
with this oil trust or under its control, if
it should appear from the evidence that
the stock of either Of these companies or
any one of them is held by this oil trust,
il will then be competent to 90 further
and show in general terms what the ex-
tent of the pool is tia. is controlled by
this oil trust, and what is tie extent Of
the business that is controlled by it, for
the purpose of putting before the commits
sion the extent OF the operations of this
trust. That is as far as we are at present
advised to think the commissioners can
90 in its ruling.
The objection to the list itself having
thus been sustained, counsel for complain
ant proceeded to question the witness with
the rulings of the Commission. The wit
ness stated in reply to series of inquiries,
that the stock of the Standard Oil Com
pany of Ohio, the Standard Oil Company
of Kentucky, the Camden Consolidated Oil
Company Of Parkersburg, W. Va, the
Waters, Pierce Oil Company of st. Louis,
and the Consolidated Trunk Line Company
of Cincinnati, was held by the Standard
Trust. Several other companies were
mentioned by counsel for complainant, but
who were objected to and excluded on the
ground that these companies had not been
brought into the case in record with matters
not already brought into this case, insist
ing that nothing in the list in question ex-
cept the Standard Oil Company of Ken
lucky, the Standard Oil Company of Ohio
and the Wsters-Pierce Company of ST.
Louis was relevant to the case There
were various other minor points of objec-
tons BY the railroads, which were urged
vigorously, though BRIEFLY. Counsel for
the Newport News and Mississippi Valley
Railroad Company, however, stated that
his company interposed no objection what
ever.
Counsel for complainant said that rail-
road witnesses had disclosed the names of
q number of consigners and consignees
who had received rates and enjoyed priyil-
eyes like those alleged to have been &C.
corded to the Standard Oil Company alone,
and it was desirable to disclose by testi-
mony of witness whether or not these in
dependent consignees or cousigners were
not in tact part of the Standard Oil
Trust
The Commission returned to the subject
under consideration, aud fifteen minutes
later the Chairman said: The Commission
is Of the opinion that il is competent TO
show by this witness or any other whether
the stock of the Standard Oil Company of
Kentucky, or the Standard Oil Company
of Ohio, or the Waters Pierce Company of
ST. Louis, or of any other company, or of
any person that has been connected by
the evidence with the shipments over
these roads during the period Of contrO-
versy, are held by this Oil Trust that has
been spoken of. Witness said, in sub.
stance, that the stock of these
companies was received from
the owners, and the certificates Of the trust
issued in exchange that the profit Of the
several companies were not divided among
stockholders of trust certificates, also that
the aggregate of outstanding certificates
was about 500, 100000. go
Complaiuants counsel proposed to show
that the actual value Of the trust certifi-
Gates was much greater, but this was ex-
cluded.
Witness stated that between rs and 80
per cent OF the oil refining business of the
country was done by his company, but he
subsequently changed this rate to IS per
cent. Trust certificates were held in all
parts of the country. On cross examina-
ton witness said that the Trust had nothing
whatever to do with the making Of the
rates, all that being done by the subordi-
nate companies.
Mr.. George Rice, the complainant, was
sworn and examined. He submitted
number of papers bearing upon all the ex-
onomic features of the oil business and
produced mass Of correspondence which
was submitted in evidence, SO far as it
might prove competent. He was examined
and cross-examined at some length, but be-
yord the statement that his profits were
about IA cents barrel on oil, delivered at
his works in Ohio, and further statement
in coroboratjon to that Of most Of the rail-
road men, that consiguer and consigee usu-
ally load and unload barreled oil at their
own expense. His testimony covered ia
miliar urnund